MATILAL NATH Vs. BENGAL CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BENGAL CHEMICAL AND PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
P.N. Mookerjee, J. -
(1.) This appeal is by the Defendant and it arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 10,000 on account of damage or compensation for breach of contract.
(2.) The relevant facts lie within a short compass and may be stated as follows: -The Appellant was employed as an assistant bacteriologist in the Biological Department of the Respondent company. He had special training at Kasauli in biological production through the help of the Respondent company. In connection with the above special training there was an agreement between the parties which was dated March 11, 1954. Under that agreement the Respondent company undertook to bear all the expenses of the Appellant at Kasauli, as stated therein, and in return the Appellant agreed to serve the Respondent company at least for five years after completion of his training at Kasauli, failing which he was to refund the amount spent on him at Kasauli, as stated hereinbefore, by the Respondent company together with a further amount of Rs. 2,000 as damages or compensation. The Appellant's special training at Kasauli commenced on and from March 15, 1954, and ended on March 14, 1955. Thereafter the Appellant came back and joined the Respondent company in terms of the above agreement. Before, however, the completion of the stipulated five years of service, he left the Respondent company on January 2, 1958, after intimating his intention to that effect by letter dated December 18, 1957. The Respondent thereupon instituted the present suit on September 3, 1958, claiming compensation in terms of the above agreement and put its claim at Rs. 10,000 after giving up a small part, namely Rs. 25 -1 -0.
(3.) The suit was contested by the Appellant and his principal defence were that the agreement in question was not binding upon him as it was vitiated in particulars by coercion and undue influence, that he was not guilty of any breach of the above agreement as, in addition to the terms, there were contemporaneous verbal assurances given to him on behalf of the Respondent company, which not having been kept, the breach was really on the part of the Respondent company. His further defence was that, in any event, the Respondent company, not having suffered any damages as a result the alleged breach, was not entitled to recover any compensation in the instant case.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.